533.

HOW IN SMALL OBJECTS ERRORS ARE LESS EVIDENT THAN IN LARGE ONES.

On the limitations of painting (533-535)In objects of minute size the extent of error is not so perceptible
as in large ones; and the reason is that if this small object is a
representation of a man or of some other animal, from the immense
diminution the details cannot be worked out by the artist with the
finish that is requisite. Hence it is not actually complete; and,
not being complete, its faults cannot be determined. For instance:
Look at a man at a distance of 300 braccia and judge attentively
whether he be handsome or ugly, or very remarkable or of ordinary
appearance. You will find that with the utmost effort you cannot
persuade yourself to decide. And the reason is that at such a
distance the man is so much diminished that the character of the
details cannot be determined. And if you wish to see how much this
man is diminished [by distance] hold one of your fingers at a span's
distance from your eye, and raise or lower it till the top joint
touches the feet of the figure you are looking at, and you will see
an incredible reduction. For this reason we often doubt as to the
person of a friend at a distance.